To be Chancellor of the Exchequer is, normally, to be the second most important politician Britain. The Blair-Brown years can be seen as a double act, followed by a catastrophic solo act. The Thatcher-Lawson years were an age of Tory radicalism, setting the conditions for the prosperity that followed. But no one speaks about a May/Hammond axis - in fact, not many speak about Philip Hammond at all. Our Chancellor has a gift for invisibility, honed throughout his political career. Unkind souls dismiss him a nodding dog, appointed for loyalty rather than ability.

Being underestimated in this way suits Mr Hammond rather well because over the last few months, he has been perhaps the most consequential member of the Cabinet, vetoing some of Theresa May’s stranger ideas. She has suggested making it harder for foreigners to buy British companies, for example, and capping the pay of chief executives. She raises such ideas in a sub-committee of her Cabinet members where Mr Hammond kills them off. I’m told that he is a sight to be behold in such meetings, speaking more bluntly than anyone else would dare. Outside No10 he’s seen as the dull-but-dutiful “spreadsheet Phil”. Inside, he has been Hammond the Hammer.

So it’s unfair to judge him by his first, rather underwhelming mini-Budget. His achievement so far lies in what he has saved us from: a 1970s-style industrial strategy, or a set of diktats forcing companies to put random workers on their boards. Barely a word of his resistance has leaked to the press, so the Prime Minister still trusts him and is guided by him. To her immense credit she’s serious about the Cabinet committee process, as is he. For mistakes not made, the record (so far) is excellent. But the record in radicalism? This is another matter entirely.

With the Labour Party a danger only to itself, there might never be a better time for Tory boldness. Instead, Mr Hammond seems fearful. He started his Chancellorship in the foetal position, waiting for the Brexit crash that he and other Cabinet Remainers warned about: the 500,000 job losses, the instant recession, the house price crash. Instead, economic growth accelerated and tax revenues have surpassed forecasts made even before the referendum. This hasn’t cheered him one bit. In the Cabinet Brexit committee, he rolls his eyes when Andrea Leadsom tries to suggest that everyone should lighten up because things will be fine. Even now, the Chancellor genuinely believes that they won’t.

To be sure, Britain faces plenty of uncertainty as we untie the knot with the European Union. It’s either thrilling or terrifying, depending on your point of view – calling for either daring or caution. And Mr Hammond is choosing caution: radicalism, he thinks, can wait.

This fits a depressingly familiar theme. Under David Cameron, the Conservatives were haunted by fear of the Labour Party and signed up to its ruinous levels of tax-and-spend. In government, Cameron was hamstrung by coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Even after winning a majority, Osborne somehow felt the need to implement Labour policies such as the minimum wage – almost as an apology for victory. It has been so long since we saw a confident Tory budget that even the Tories seem to have forgotten what one looks like.

The basics are pretty simple. Conservatism is a belief the countries and communities are stronger and fairer if more money and power are left in the hands of the people, rather than by government. That individuals take wiser decisions for themselves than any politician can take on their behalf. This isn’t an ideology, as such, just an observation that lower taxes, regulatory restraint and sound money is a formula that has worked everywhere that it’s been tried.

David Fuller's view

I am grateful to Philip Hammond for his outspoken comments in cabinet meetings which have squashed some of the daft left-wing suggestions mentioned above. This government does not have to adopt senseless Labour Party policies to attract more Labour voters.  However, it does need to reawaken the aspirational interests of traditional Labour voters, which it can start doing by helping the economy in the manner of Margaret Thatcher.  Today’s equivalent would include more houses, lower taxes and sensible, competitive energy policies.

Here is a PDF of Fraser Nelson's column.